Articles of the Federation [spoilers]

I just finished reading Articles of the Federation. I had kind of skipped it (and taken a bit of a break from Trek books in general). I am not at all interested in politics or political fiction, so the book never sounded very interesting to me. (I consider myself an apolitical conservative.) My wife had a brief period of fascination with The West Wing, which I tolerated.

I did enjoy the bits of "Star Trek: The West Wing" in the A Time To... books though - I picked up on the West Wing similarities immediately.

Anyhow, I found the book used a long while back and finally got around to reading it just now.

I was completely blown away by how good this book was. I could not put it down. And it left me wanting more.

A few thoughts:

It was interesting reading this book after Before Dishonour. I kept wondering when that book exactly happened, and how the president and her staff would have handled it, what they would have been doing, etc. Also, I noticed Janeway was still around in March (?), which spaces the relaunch books out a lot more in time than I had imagined originally.

(Still well within the realm of reason though.)

The ending and Admiral Ross's forced retirement was shocking for me. I had forgotten about the "retirement" Section 31 had arranged for the former president - that little bit at the end of A Time to... I was genuinely curious about where Zife had ended up because I just couldn't remember.

Now that I think about it, I remember it being shocking to me the first time as well. So, you got to shock me that they'd make the president and his henchmen quietly disappear ... twice!

Ross's resignation made me sad. Ross was the one Starfleet Admiral I really liked in all of televised / movie Star Trek. (Except, of course, Admiral Kirk.) It seemed fitting considering his associations with Section 31 in the past that he'd resign to protect them though.

Janeway gone, Ross gone. At least we still have L J. Why can't you people get rid of the annoying admirals???? Like, I dunno, Jellico? (Peter David wouldn't have anything to write about then, of course.)

I wonder if we'll hear anything more about the events at the end of the book in the Romulan Empire. These seem like logical events to eventually follow up on in the TNG relaunch books, though they're a year out from where it started.

It was interesting reading this book after Before Dishonour. I kept wondering when that book exactly happened, and how the president and her staff would have handled it, what they would have been doing, etc. Also, I noticed Janeway was still around in March (?), which spaces the relaunch books out a lot more in time than I had imagined originally.

Click to expand...

My assumption in writing Greater Than the Sum was that Before Dishonor took place between the May and August sections of the book, specifically in June, shortly after Bacco's commencement speech to the Academy. It couldn't be earlier, since Bacco said this was the first Academy class to make it the entire four years without the Federation being at war. I also assumed that Resistance took place in late April, again between sections of AotF, and that Q & A took place in early May, between chapters 16 & 17 of AotF.

The Ross resignation scene played very cinematically for me,I could almost see Barry Jenner's adams apple bob as he realised his fate.To be honest I wanted Ross to fight/argue his cause,but I respected him even more for not doing so.
The constant baseball thing did begin to grate to the extent that it kinda made the president of the federation look a little eccentric(and not in a good way).
Bacco's bitch-slap to Tal'aura was almost worth the price of admission.(which reminds me...any plans to examine the romulan senates executions effect on that society?If the romulans live up to stereotype,there must have been wholescale skullduggery afoot to fill the new senate seats etc.)

The Ross resignation scene played very cinematically for me,I could almost see Barry Jenner's adams apple bob as he realised his fate.To be honest I wanted Ross to fight/argue his cause,but I respected him even more for not doing so.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I have to admit sheepishly that that was probably the scene in the book I was happiest with.

The constant baseball thing did begin to grate to the extent that it kinda made the president of the federation look a little eccentric(and not in a good way).

Click to expand...

As Esperanza explained at one point, baseball was her pressure valve -- the thing that keeps her sane in an insane job.

Bacco's bitch-slap to Tal'aura was almost worth the price of admission.(which reminds me...any plans to examine the romulan senates executions effect on that society?If the romulans live up to stereotype,there must have been wholescale skullduggery afoot to fill the new senate seats etc.)

My favorate character in the book was Bacco. I've said once before about AftF that she really made me laugh my ass off at times but she also seemed to be very tough (loved her dealings with Martok and Tal'aura).

As for the all the baseball talk that was kinda fun though I was kinda pissed there wasn't a New Detroit Tigers team on Cestus.

Thanks for the kind words! I'm especially glad that you enjoyed it after being so apprehensive about it in the first place.

And what Christopher said regarding the dates.

Click to expand...

Just a question about the dates of the TNG relaunch books...

I initially agreed with the placement of Resistance, but having just read Q&A, I found something that made me revise that. 'One day before the end of the universe,' Admiral Shelby was reading reports on the Reman ship approaching Outpost 22 on the Neutral Zone. Sometime in March, (the end maybe?) that ship made a suicide run at the outpost, according to AotF. If the ship was still en route in Q&A, that would place it in early-mid March at the absolute latest, and Resistance even earlier. Is this just going down as a discrepancy?

^ The terms are four years long, but there's no limit on the number of terms a president can serve.

I have to admit that I did that because I think the 22nd amendment is one of the most stupid-ass amendments Congress ever passed. It was an overreaction to one president who served four terms under unique circumstances. Prior to FDR, no president had ever served more than two terms because it's a goddamn impossible job that pretty much drains the life out of anyone who does it for eight years.

Having said that, there's no reason, none, to limit the number of terms a president can serve. Like I said, reality kept every president prior to the 22nd to two terms, and if another situation comes by where we have/need an FDR to serve four terms, I don't want that stupid-ass amendment to stop it from happening.

Prior to FDR, no president had ever served more than two terms because it's a goddamn impossible job that pretty much drains the life out of anyone who does it for eight years. Having said that, there's no reason, none, to limit the number of terms a president can serve.

Click to expand...

Or, we can look at any number of parliamentary systems like Canada, Australia, the U.K., Italy, Spain... no limits of the number of terms that can be served, but that doesn't translate to Prime Ministers for Life, since eventually either the population gets tired and throws out the government, or the ambitious members within the party force the man at the top out. Political turnover is healthy, but in an already healthy democracy, turnover for its own sake makes little sense.

Like I said, reality kept every president prior to the 22nd to two terms, and if another situation comes by where we have/need an FDR to serve four terms, I don't want that stupid-ass amendment to stop it from happening.

^ The terms are four years long, but there's no limit on the number of terms a president can serve.

I have to admit that I did that because I think the 22nd amendment is one of the most stupid-ass amendments Congress ever passed. It was an overreaction to one president who served four terms under unique circumstances. Prior to FDR, no president had ever served more than two terms because it's a goddamn impossible job that pretty much drains the life out of anyone who does it for eight years.

Having said that, there's no reason, none, to limit the number of terms a president can serve. Like I said, reality kept every president prior to the 22nd to two terms, and if another situation comes by where we have/need an FDR to serve four terms, I don't want that stupid-ass amendment to stop it from happening.

But that's just me.

Click to expand...

I, on the other hand, find myself eternally grateful to the 80th Congress for putting into place a constitutional rule, and insurmountable barrier, that prevents George W. Bush from ever being elected to a third term as President of the United States ever again for the rest of time.

I initially agreed with the placement of Resistance, but having just read Q&A, I found something that made me revise that. 'One day before the end of the universe,' Admiral Shelby was reading reports on the Reman ship approaching Outpost 22 on the Neutral Zone. Sometime in March, (the end maybe?) that ship made a suicide run at the outpost, according to AotF. If the ship was still en route in Q&A, that would place it in early-mid March at the absolute latest, and Resistance even earlier. Is this just going down as a discrepancy?

Click to expand...

I was aware of that problem when trying to sort out the dates of the previous three novels, but I just couldn't reconcile Resistance taking place prior to March. There were multiple references in RES to several months having passed since the E-E went back on duty. Also, as I said above, it's unlikely that Before Dishonor takes place before June, and there can't be too much time elapsed between RES and BD; if anything, the first chapter of BD suggests that very little time at all has passed since RES.

So balancing those factors with the need to fit these events between sections of AotF led me to the late April/early May/early June breakdown for the three novels. That reference in the Shelby chapter was one detail I couldn't reconcile, but it was just a single sentence or two, not enough to outweigh the other factors. So it just goes down as a glitch.

On term limits, I've long felt that they were a mistake. We already have the power to limit the term of any officeholder -- by voting for the other candidate. But we also have the power to keep that officeholder if we think they're doing a good job. Term limits take away part of our freedom of choice, and that's contrary to the principles of a democratic system.